Live data from Hacker News

Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill

washingtonpost.com

81–90 of 169 posts

Re: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill

#81
post #74

I'm sorry to all Americans who may read this and get ruffled, but what the actual fuck is wrong with your political landscape and attitudes towards workers rights? Why don't you have unions? Why do Americans seem to hate unions? Why don't you have an active political party representing workers? Why don't you have an active movement to prevent your employer from becoming overseer of your entire life? All I see day in…

> But your politics and attitudes towards work, workers and their rights is abhorrent and disgusting.

Because the government providing anything for you is seen as a form of welfare or regulation that "kills jobs."

Never mind that any senior in the US benefits hugely from Social Security and Medicare, making any proposed reform of those programs nearly political suicide. Just look at efforts to raise the retirement age if you think I'm kidding.

So, not to sound like a whiney millennial, but the older generation already has programs which are quite socialist. However some Americans have still been duped into believing the "American dream" applies to them (it probably did if you were male and white in the 1950s) and thus anything that helps other people is "socialism" or "government overreach"

Nevermind that the Republicans will happily reach into bedrooms (abortion) and bathrooms (transgender rights) to affect people's life.

It's a complete farce to watch this unfolding in the US from Canada. Yeah, our healthcare isn't perfect, I don't think anyone said it was, but I don't have to worry about bankruptcy if I go to the hospital. Nor do I have to worry about politicians fucking me over w.r.t. healthcare.

Re: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill

#82
post #74

I'm sorry to all Americans who may read this and get ruffled, but what the actual fuck is wrong with your political landscape and attitudes towards workers rights? Why don't you have unions? Why do Americans seem to hate unions? Why don't you have an active political party representing workers? Why don't you have an active movement to prevent your employer from becoming overseer of your entire life? All I see day in…

I hesitate to throw out this quote because it may come across as a "hot take" but I think that John Steinbeck said it best:

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."

Another quote I've heard is that "extremists become more extreme, not less, as problems come closer to solutions."

"Socialism" and "extremists" don't really apply but the sentiments do. Unions sprang up in the United States as a counterweight to outright and absolute worker abuse. Things we--those resident in the U.S.--now take as "absolute," like child labor laws and the 40-hour workweek, were earned as a result of those early struggles.

We've had it really good here for really long, comparatively, so I think that a lot of people see these kinds of abuses as "won't happen to me"-ism so they're not interested in sacrificing even a little to ensure that the abuses happen to virtually[0] no one.

Going back to unions, a lot of people I know--in the IT industry, obviously--flatly refuse to recognize that a union could be a good thing because jobs, salaries, and opportunities are all plentiful. We're not "abused" because employers know that we can just hop jobs and recover. (Never mind things like the gaming industry or the "crunch" period or, say, Uber.) Because of the illusion of choice, unions aren't valued. (I say "illusion" because witness what happened in the doldrums of the early 2000s. When every employer, or even a bunch of large employers, pull back at the same time, there is no choice.)

For others, things like unions or some form of collective action or even just "group health care run by the government" are seen as impinging on the basic rights to shoot--metaphor intentionally chosen--our own feet off however we like, consequences be damned because other countries are just wrong and the United States is a Special Snowflake.

Or something like that but maybe with a little less bite.

0 - I say virtually because people will always find a way to take advantage of others but there's a lot to be said for pushing to prevent that as much as possible. America doesn't seem to do that very much.

Re: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill

#83

We've got to separate healthcare from employers before this goes to far. Companies have no business in your health and we still tie health insurance to employment as a legacy error not a benefit. Many problems arise from healthcare provided from the job such as ageism, culling the sick, making it harder to change jobs or start companies, and losing healthcare as you change jobs, not to mention helping the fixed price…

In the US many have a very flawed way of thinking: if we give more power to companies, than we won't need government. I've met so many bright & creative programmer types who even believe this. Government should exist to protect it's people and environment. It should have the long term in mind & work with other governments to do the same, creating a level playing field for the companies to be within.

>>I've met so many bright & creative programmer types who even believe this.

I would posit that they aren't very bright if they actually believe it.

Re: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill

#84
Given her own lowly origins Virginia Foxx (opposed aid for Katrina, a bill against hate crime, hates gays - nice) you'd think someone like her would be against such forced disclosures. It won't affect her because she is nearly dead but her grandchildren will almost certainly carry defects causing hemoglobin mutations for sickle cell anemia, neurogenetic disorders and have increased risk for chromosomal disorders such as Downs. Republicans voting for this kind of widespread intrusion is like turkeys voting for xmas.

Re: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill

#85

We've got to separate healthcare from employers before this goes to far. Companies have no business in your health and we still tie health insurance to employment as a legacy error not a benefit. Many problems arise from healthcare provided from the job such as ageism, culling the sick, making it harder to change jobs or start companies, and losing healthcare as you change jobs, not to mention helping the fixed price…

[deleted]

Re: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill

#86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally find Indian capitalistic medical care equivalent to the US. Under most circumstances (i.e., I don't need a super specialist who happens to be located elsewhere) I'll always choose to have work done here in India. I've made this choice before and never regretted it. You can read about a description of my spine surgery if you like: https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2015/medical_tourism.html Similarly, I m…

> I personally find Indian capitalistic medical care equivalent to the US Having had multiple friends and relatives get treated for identical diseases and/or undergo identical treatments between the United States and India, I respectfully disagree. Survival, technology, training and quality of care are undoubtedly higher in America.

Comparing averages, I agree. Most of India is rural poverty, with few good hospitals. Or, for that matter, few good toilets.

Comparing the places available to me - an upper middle class professional - I strongly prefer India. Spine surgery cost me 1 month of the average Indian software engineer's salary (vs easily 1 year of salary in the US), and quality was equivalent.

My doctor was as good as any in the UK (he was licensed to practice there, in fact), he just came back home for family reasons.

Re: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill

#88

We've got to separate healthcare from employers before this goes to far. Companies have no business in your health and we still tie health insurance to employment as a legacy error not a benefit. Many problems arise from healthcare provided from the job such as ageism, culling the sick, making it harder to change jobs or start companies, and losing healthcare as you change jobs, not to mention helping the fixed price…

In the US many have a very flawed way of thinking: if we give more power to companies, than we won't need government. I've met so many bright & creative programmer types who even believe this. Government should exist to protect it's people and environment. It should have the long term in mind & work with other governments to do the same, creating a level playing field for the companies to be within.

Yeah, I was just having a conversation with someone today about how it never works out in practice. There is no free market, and in anything approaching it, companies simply e.g. collude to keep prices high or make things unnecessarily complex. Look at cell phone plans and what "unlimited" means, for example. Not that the wireless ISP industry is unregulated (far from it), but why not just start your own and fix it? Free market, right? Start a healthcare company and undercut everyone because free market. Start an ISP and take down Comcast, etc.

The point of a business is to make a profit. This is many times at odds with what people actually need to e.g. Stay alive. I'm not sure why many people keep attempting to suggest businesses as a solution to the modern basic needs of humans. They're fundamentally misaligned.

I guess there is still debate around if a modern society should let people suffer and die because they did not generate or inherit enough money to pay for medical care. It saddens me that our baseline of giving a shit about other people in our society is pretty low in America, even though we have far beyond the means to do so. Enough people with enough power here would rather have a few extra % in their shell company bank accounts instead of increasing the standard of living for the people of the society in which they exist.

"A rising tide lifts all boats"

Re: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill

#89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In fact, Obamacare (which significantly mitigates the healthcare related costs of changing jobs) The ACA doesn't all that significantly affect the healthcare-related impact of switching jobs (it slightly mitigates the healthcare related cost of being a difficult-to-insure individual and moving from a job that provides a group plan to one that doesn't), and the parts of it that did have some impact on that were have…

The parent poster said this: ...start companies [without loss of health care], and losing healthcare as you change jobs... Obamacare does in fact solve both these problems. According to you, how long will it take for potential startup founders to figure out that Obamacare actually gives them the ability to do a startup without losing health insurance? 10 years? 20 years? Is a person who is unaware of Obamacare after…

We have single payer here in France and we are way less entrepreneurial than the US. In fact most entrepreneurs here hate single payer as it imposes huge taxation on them for something that would be cheap under a private insurance system because most startup founders are young.

Re: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill

#90

We've got to separate healthcare from employers before this goes to far. Companies have no business in your health and we still tie health insurance to employment as a legacy error not a benefit. Many problems arise from healthcare provided from the job such as ageism, culling the sick, making it harder to change jobs or start companies, and losing healthcare as you change jobs, not to mention helping the fixed price…

The history behind our current nonsensical scheme started with FDR capping wages during the great depression, which spurred companies to offer "perks" like healthcare to recruit talent. An example of one market intervention leading to another, and another, ad nauseam. Totally agree that insurance should be decoupled from corporations. The way the "market" is regulated hampers people from working independently or star…

There are many things that started 70 years ago which have long since gone.

So, there must be forces which sustain the US model, where the employer pays for medical insurance.

Also, I fail to see how employers offering medical insurance should make insurance for an individual any more expensive.

So, while I appreciate the sentiment that something is clearly wrong, the two things that you mentioned are not the cause.

Post reply on HN